User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 37

Thank goodness you're around!

We're getting nailed by 4channers. Please keep an eye on AIV and RFPP, I've been sending stuff to both places. Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 12:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure! I'm now moving on to WP:RFPP. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Lucapremier88

Hi there; could I ask you to look at the talkpage of this user, whome you recently blocked? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

• News and notes: Amsterdam gets the GLAM treatment, fundraising marches on, and a flourish of new admins

• In the news: A Wikistream of real time edits, a call for COI reform, and cracks in the ivory tower of knowledge

• Discussion report: Trial proposed for tool apprenticeship

• WikiProject report: This article is about WikiProject Disambiguation. For other uses...

• Featured content: This week's Signpost is for the birds!

• Arbitration report: Elections due to finish this week, little activity on Betacommand 3, Abortion case amended

• Technology report: Incremental dumps help mirrors, full screen search helps mobile visitors, and two MediaWiki releases help external sites

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ozark outdoors

To: User:NawlinWiki, User:Salvio giuliano and User:Kinu

You are all admins. I'd like to point out what you did regarding Ozark outdoors. This was a poorly written article on a possibly notable subject (a medium-sized company that has existed for decades). It was written by User:Ozarkworld, a new editor who had done some research and written original copy on the subject. However, User:Ozarkworld was not aware wiki standards and rules. Here is what you did:

1. User:NawlinWiki deleted the article without giving the creator any help with establishing notability despite User:Ozarkworld asking for help.
2. User:Salvio giuliano gave User:Ozarkworld an indefinite block.
3. When User:Ozarkworld appealed the ban giving a reasonable explanation for his or her username, User:Kinu declined the appeal because User:Ozarkworld also said something in the appeal that he didn't like.

Great work guys. Now rather than us having a new editor User:Ozarkworld has left wikipedia never to come back. Delete and block are not the only things admins are able to do. Sometimes you could try engaging with new editors who do not know the rules.

(PS. Dissent is permitted. Please don't block me) --Bucephalus (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

While I'm definitely sorry the user in question felt bitten and chose to leave Wikipedia for good, I believe my actions were reasonable and in keeping with current policy; accounts whose usernames run afoul of WP:U are routinely blocked without warning and {{softerblock}} is as unbitey as humanly possible (it welcomes the user to Wikipedia, explains that the only reason for the block is the username and invites him to create a new account or to appeal the block if he believes that it was imposed in error); many people contact me by email or ask to be unblocked to ask for a rename... In short, I'm really sorry this user took offence at my block, but I don't believe I acted improperly. That said, I firmly believe that criticism, when expressed civilly, is always useful, so do not fear any retaliation from me. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

• Opinion essay: Wikipedia in Academe – and vice versa

• News and notes: Research project banner ads run afoul of community

• In the news: Bell Pottinger investigation, Gardner on gender gap, and another plagiarist caught red-handed

• WikiProject report: Spanning Nine Time Zones with WikiProject Russia

• Featured content: Wehwalt gives his fifty cents; spies, ambushes, sieges, and Entombment

• Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 workshop revived, two cases set for acceptance and the ArbCom elections finish on a whimper

• Technology report: Trials and tribulations of image rotation, Article Feedback version 5, and new diff colours

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:GalingPinas

Hi Salvio. Just a note that the essay Wikipedia:Competence is required says "in general, if WP:COMPETENCE applies to an editor, it is usually not appropriate to tell them so". Possibly we need an advice essay with a less insulting title that could be used as an explanation for editors who get blocked for these reasons, but in the absence of such an advice page, it's best to use that link with care.

(I don't disagree with the block itself, this person seems to be extremely difficult to communicate with, and plenty of people have tried.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware that WP:CIR suggests that it's not really appropriate to bluntly tell a user they're incompetent, but I always assumed it meant that it's quite inappropriate to block someone for "gross incompetence"... I tried to be kind, indicating that I had blocked them for "good faith inability to edit in a collegial fashion", though in the end I felt that link was necessary to clarify the meaning of my words... I really hope I did not offend them (and I'm sorry if I have), but, in the end, we also have WP:SPADE... After all, they had already received an awful lot of good advice, without actually listening... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Non-free images with orphaned versions more than 7 days old

Thank you for helping deal with the backlog at Category:Non-free images with orphaned versions more than 7 days old. Please note, however, that merely deleting the old versions of the iage doesn't remove it from the category - pleasse also remove the {{orphaned fair use revisions}} tag from the iage description page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for your note. I remember reading that there was a bot that removed the tag automatically, but I can't remember where... I'll go back to the files and remove the tags momentarily! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

While such a bot doesn aparently exist, when a call for admins to clear out the category is made, and multiple admins are doing it at the same time, these images should be removed in real time. As far as I can tell, the bot doesn't actually do that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Chauhan

Sorry about that. The issue has been hashed out only three months ago, and I am fairly sure that the present IP is the same person as was previously contesting the point about "most famous" etc. - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand that and I agree that this user's edits were rather POV, but unfortunately that's not an exception to 3-rr; I'm sorry I protected the article, but I deemed that to be the best way to stop the edit war... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Specific guidance sought in recent matter of Fedora and Bowler hat

Regarding the two articles for which protection was requested, I made a new inquiry[1]. in all good faith. I'd like to be shown some guidelines so that I will not keep wasting everyone's time asking for protection. I have been able to protect pages in the past against such edits, and now I am refused each time with the same rejection. I'd be most obliged. Please let me know on my talk page if there is a guideline page or rules you could spell out for me. Thanks. Djathinkimacowboy 20:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It's actually a matter of admin discretion, there is no guideline indicating a bright line, a number of disruptive edits which make it compulsory for a sysop to protect a page. There is a rough guide to semi-protection, which is very useful.

In this case, the disruptive edits were only a few edits, were made by one or two IPs and were concentrated over the last day or so. Such low-level disruption is best handled through block. When there are multiple IPs wreaking havoc or when they are limited in number but the disruption they cause is stretched over a long period of time (or when vandals are hitting a WP:BLP), then protection is warranted. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I'll print it out for ref. As you may have noted, I happen to think what the specific IP is doing qualifies as vandalism, and I made a report with the diffs. It was summarily deleted and the IP is not blocked, so it appears I either rang a false alarm or the IP is being given a chance without warnings from anyone but me. I thank you for the help and guidance in this matter. I'll keep vigilant and keep warning the IP; I know that IP will be back. Djathinkimacowboy 17:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This info is exclusively for you to see, for the moment. Regarding IP 58.160.128.164 may I call your attention to [2] (just this one diff to give you the overview), [3], [4] and [5]. If you will consult these, you will see what I mean. This is all new activity, the same old garbage. I have issued a new warning here[6]. Now, if everyone is going to say it's nothing, it doesn't merit any attention, what do you think the IP is going to do? And several editors are now watching for the vandalism and reverting it. Djathinkimacowboy 17:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Those edits are weird; they're unhelpful and disruptive, though I'm not sure they are technically vandalism. My suggestion, for cases like this, would be to go through the four warning levels (you can issue them rather easily using Twinkle) and, then, if they do not stop, to report them to WP:AIV or WP:ANI, should the case not be clear cut, where they'll be blocked. I'm not going to block them now because their edits are stale (the IP has not edited in a bit). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, as to Twinkle, I do not have a full enough grasp and do not trust myself on that road. :O Agreed, the edits are just weird because this IP has a fetish about putting in the Three Stooges. We can't figure it out; there's no communication, nothing in the IP's edit summaries and I think this is some kid fooling round on his grandma's PC. :) It is obvious they are not in good faith because the IP is jumping to new articles now. Oh that reminds me: I can't really understand why you say it's stale: IP just edited agai within the last 24 hours if I am not mistaken, and it's the same old crazy edit. Just that one, single edit. How do we label this IP? Ip's been warned enough as far as I'm concerned anyway. Djathinkimacowboy 19:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Since IPs can and do get reassigned and since blocks are preventative and not punitive, usually IPs are not blocked if their vandalism is detected many hours after they stopped, because we might end up blocking an innocent user who happens to edit from the same IP address. In this case, they haven't edited in 8 hours, so theyir edits are considered stale; if they start again, warn (maybe only using a level 2 and then a level 4) and report. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What a relief, I see my browser's too old and will not support Twinkle anyway. I like to just keep daily watch over my articles where I work most. I can track these weird editors easily enough now. Frankly, I do not really understand what Twinkle is even after having read the page. Djathinkimacowboy 19:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle is an amasing tool, in my opinion. It allows you to do an incredible number of things in just two clicks: you can revert vandalism, warn vandals, welcome new users, tag, protect or delete new pages... It's awesome! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

IP at it again here[7]. Fortunately intercepted and reverted. This was a particularly sneaky edit not noted in my watchlist due to the swiftness of its reversion. Prepared to block IP now? Or not? Djathinkimacowboy 23:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, would you be willing to contribute an opinion at the talk page about the addition of a trivia tag over the list of famous fedoras? I think it unnecessary and is no way to stop the IP's silly edits! Djathinkimacowboy 23:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Update. Article semied for a week and vandal blocked for 24 hours. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:UAA Report on Ngaymaisao

Sorry, my mistake Salvio. I'd thought that the word "gay" was a serious violation of username policy. Thank you for letting me know anyways. Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 02:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No biggie, don't worry. Gay can be a violation of the username policy, but that's not always true. If it were used as part of a username meant to attack someone, for instance, then the account would be blocked on sight. In this case, howevever, the gay part appeared rather harmless, so there was no reason to block. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok thanks anyways Salvio. Since this is the first time it's been brought to my attention that I need to be a bit more cautious before reporting a username I will be a bit more careful before reporting. Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 13:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Tarun kataria

Hi, I was under the impression that vandalism encompassed 'adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page'. As the content of the article in question was 'is a brown man' or something to that effect, I would think that G3 is as justifiable as A7? Thanks, - blake- 20:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

To define vandal a user, they must be editing in bad faith; while I believe that article was definitely inappropriate (and, in fact, I deleted it), I'm not sure it had been maliciously created. That's why I preferred to use A7, a criterion which, in case they were a genuinely clueless newbie, is a bit less bitey than G3... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Association of Applied Biologists

Hi Salvio,

I don't know if you remember but you helped me a few months ago with my page. I tried to transfer it to publish it but people have moved it and I can't find it - please can you help me? Thanks C

Yes, I remember you.

Your draft was here, but it was deleted as it appeared to be a copyright violation. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, so I cannot undelete it. I'm really sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, my user talk page has been vandalized for the second time and my guess is that the idiot will start doing so for my drafts as well. See this. As such, i would appreciate it if you would do one of the following:

• Either block the following IPs for a long period: 109.249.213.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 194.176.105.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 89.240.181.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 109.249.194.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

or;

• Semi-protect my user talk page and drafts for a month.

Thank you. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 12:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Offending IP blocked for 24 hours; the others are all stale. If this keeps up, I'll either impose increasing blocks or start semi-protecting your talk page (your draft was already protected by Ged UK). Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Please also extend the semi-protection to my drafts. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 13:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. When you no longer want/need it, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a million. :-) Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 13:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother, but please do so for my userpage as well. See this. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 13:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 Already done. I'm very efficient. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

lol. Damn efficient! Merry Christmas! :-) Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 13:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Merry Christmas to you too! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Fedora protection

I wanted to thank you. The article needs some protection and I am glad you assisted so patiently and diligently. That IP is clearly a vandal, in this case due to the IP's behaviour and not due to content of edit. Djathinkimacowboy 18:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh: Salvio, do you think there is enough disruption to warrant protection of Porkpie hat and Bowler hat? Frankly, I hope this IP gets indefblocked for this. Djathinkimacowboy 19:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I see another admin has already declined your request and I agree with him. Should this guy sock again, then I'll protect the article; so far, protection is not yet warranted... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you consider another block?

Salvio, you need to see this edit summary[[8]]. Djathinkimacowboy 21:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Salvio, look at the edit history[9] and recall you blocked IP58 for trouble. I'm beginning to smell a sock....The insulting edit summary was reinstated so that you might see it and then judge. Djathinkimacowboy 22:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

See this[10] which is the start of the trouble. Note it occurred after the reversion of IP 58 who was blocked for disruption. I think IP 92.18.199.30 is a sock of IP 58.160.128.164. Investigate? Open SPI? I will await your feedback. Djathinkimacowboy 23:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw it and I must say I laughed, even though I know I shouldn't... The IP was blocked for a week by another admin, which, by the way, is exactly what I would have done too. We do not indef IPs, but we certainly impose increasing blocks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about my jumping the gun...I think I wanted to say that I hoped the indefblock day will come. And it is indeed a bit weird how these IPs pop up to do these kinds of things. I must say: I did not consider it a laughing matter. But I am with you. I didn't notice the week-long block; it's a great Christmas present to us all! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you. Djathinkimacowboy 18:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and happy new year to you too! And thanks for the barnstar! It's much appreciated! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It was well earned and I think makes a nice 'stocking stuffer' too. :) Djathinkimacowboy 23:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's hope you get no more abusive messages from unidentfied IPs. Merry Xmas. 07:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Merry Christmas to you too! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Salvio: 1st, I don't believe I added that last message to you that is clearly unsigned. ("Let's hope you get no more abusive messages from unidentfied IPs. Merry Xmas.") I would never write "Xmas" to anyone. Now....I know this[11] will make you laugh but I am, as I said before, getting nervous about it. You really ought to bring this to ANI. This can turn into serious disruption and I'm sick of seeing this editor switching IPs only to vandalise articles just so the IP can call you names and insult you. Djathinkimacowboy 22:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that "Xmas" message was added by IP 78.150.195.85[12]. Don't think that is too much trouble, but it goes to show how spooky the IP editors are getting round here. I've encountered that 78 IP before. Don't get me wrong, but I really think this ought to be stopped or looked into, I don't take it as easily as you do. It's to your credit but I think this IP vandalism has gone on long enough. Salvio, if I resume this general thread I will do it in a new sec. below, OK? Also: please comment at my talk page about this matter. It is difficult to keep track of everyone involved, and would help me immensely in not excluding anyone. Cheers!22:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Djathinkimacowboy

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For good humoured, rational editing decisions all the way round. Djathinkimacowboy 20:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

• News and notes: Anti-piracy act has Wikimedians on the defensive, WMF annual report released, and Indic language dynamics

• In the news: To save the wiki: strike first, then makeover?

• Discussion report: Polls, templates, and other December discussions

• WikiProject report: A dalliance with the dismal scientists of WikiProject Economics

• Featured content: Panoramas with Farwestern and a good week for featured content

• Arbitration report: The community elects eight arbitrators

• Technology report: Visual editor demo launched, hailed as "most important change to our user experience ... ever"; but elsewhere over-hasty deployments criticised

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Please revert

[13]. Arbcom has not accepted the case, and closing a discussion before consensus has been reached does not benefit the project; it acts more like the bell at the end of a boxing round -- rather than having achieved anything positive, the parties just back to their "corners" until we do it all again. The conversation will end when folks run out of things to say. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to undo my action, I shan't revert you, but at the same time I'm not going to self-revert as I don't think it's useful to discuss the same issue in two places at the same time... If ArbCom rejects the case, then the discussion can be reopened, after all... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

re: MF case

I posted a link (in a "Statement from Ched" section) to the comment Malleus had regarding the case. I wasn't sure where to put it. Since you're the clerk - thought I'd drop it in your lap. feel free to move or refactor, or whatever should be done with it. Cheers and have a great holiday season. — Ched :  ?  17:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's OK like that. I'm not going to reblock Malleus, but you did the right thing to link to it! Best wishes to you too! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)